been avoided, and an artless and simple, yet dignified, form of expression employed, thus making it available for the general religious reader. Balance and sanity of judgment, strength and virility of thought, loftiness of ethical standards, insight and grasp of things spiritual, characterize throughout the successive paragraphs of this really notable discussion. But this, by the way.

What we are here more particularly interested in lies beneath the surface of the characteristics mentioned. What are its doctrinal content and value? What is its theological attitude? Answers to such questions are more to the point than estimates as to the literary qualities of such a piece of writing. As has been already intimated, in the judgment of Dr. Brown, the three outstanding theories of traditional theology concerning the Atonement can no longer be successfully maintained. The New Testament conception of the character of God, and the ethical standards which it inspires and to which the Father himself must ever be true, unite in adjudging them as inadequate interpretations of the significance of Christ's redeeming work. The "satisfaction theory' which runs, "dollar for dollar, so much suffering endured by Christ to purchase so much forgiveness and mercy for us,” he says, "does not seem like the atmosphere of the gospels." To his mind "strict justice is not satisfied if the innocent suffer; it requires the punishment of the guilty. If Christ the Son, whose sense of justice equals that of the Father, could, while we were yet sinners, love us enough to die for us, surely God the Father, who is one with the Son in character, loves enough to forgive without any suffering of penalty by an innocent victim. The Scriptures nowhere represent Christ's sufferings as "punishment," nor as having been necessary to reconcile an angry God to us, but as reconciling us to him." The "governmental theory " is nothing better than a fictitious "make-shift, invented to save the supposed majesty of Divine law. It represents God as bound hand and foot by the exigencies of His own rule. He desires to forgive sinners when they turn to

him in penitence, but fears for the majesty of his administration. This surely loads the idea of majesty with a burden too grievous to be borne." The "moral influence theory" in teaching that Christ's mission in the world was simply "to teach, to live, to heal and to bless,-finally even, as the climax and crown of His beneficent purposes, to die, in order to melt the rebellious and guilty hearts of men,-does not in a sufficient way meet and explain the many texts of Scripture which certainly represent His death as something more than that of a martyr, or the exhibition of God's pleading mercy." Accordingly, it, too, must be rejected.

Following these negative considerations, by which the way is cleared for the presentation of the positive constructive views the doctrine is set forth in a form, which, our author believes, carries the convictions of the enlightened Christian consciousness of to-day, and has an abundant support in the teachings of the Bible. These views deserve to be read in their entirety. Hence, one shall not presume to do more in this connection than indicate the general theological attitude underlying them, and if that will help to serve in sending readers to the discussion itself, the design of these observations will have been accomplished. Perhaps the most suggestive characterization of this attitude may be given by calling it approximately that of M'Cleod Campbell, Dean Stanley, Bishop Westcott, Canon Moberly, and Scott Lidgett, and not that of Anselm, Dale, Denney, or its latest apologist, Simpson.* As everybody knows, all of the names of the first list stand for the view that it is the Incarnation of the Son of God that gives significance to his work of reconciliation, or in other words, that the Atonement in its final explanation must be regarded as the mode of incarnation required by the conditions and circumstances amid which it was accomplished. Like Dr. Mabie, above quoted, these leaders of thought look upon the tragedy of the crucifixion as a "human crime" and find in the " violent shedding

*See article in Hasting's "Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels." Scribners, New York.

of blood" nothing essential or intrinsically efficacious, apart from the supreme moral qualities which came to their glorious consummation on the cross. With them, our chapter in "The Main Points" accentuates the principles of absolute obedience to the Divine will, of assent to God's abhorrence of evil and sin, of unflinching fidelity to righteousness and truth, of loyalty to the revealed law of love, and of the duty of achieving and maintaining in this way the supreme end of life, a holy character, even though it involved suffering, self-sacrifice, and death, these latter being the "sacrament," the "visible sign," of the triumphant victory achieved for human salvation by the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, the Cross establishes the law (Romans 3:31), and manifests and supplies the felt needs of the human soul. It shows that the work of Christ is an act of completed reconciliation, the ground of the believing sinner's justification, and thus alike the subject of man's adoring gratitude and the source of renewed moral effort. And as thus interpreted, the doctrine of the Cross justifies itself to the reason of believers who, in the phrase of Ritschl,† stand in the "effective union" provided for in that Divine Kingdom, which in response to His vocation was founded among men by Him who in His life and work of reconciliation "recapitulated "" our mortal race. Agreeing with the only theologian that, since Schleiermacher, has succeeded in establishing a distinctive "school" of religious thought, in the opinion that there "is very little warrant in the biblical circle of thought for the statement that Christ expiated sin by his passion," and that the death of Jesus "is merely the summary expression of the fact that Christ maintained his religious unity with God," this view may invite upon its head the opprobrium of being "Ritschlian," but of so, Dr. Brown and his sympathizers need not be greatly disturbed thereby. With Harnack, Kaftan and others, they are in rather distinguished and respectable theological company.

Cf. "Justification and Reconciliation." English Translation, Chapter VIII.

THE GRACIOUS MINISTRY OF CHRISTIAN HOMES.

The heated and acrimonious controversy of the last few years in England, over the so-called "school question," must long ere this have brought regret and pain to the minds of all that have given any attention to the origin and progress of it. At base it is a religious controversy, in which the non-conformist religious bodies of the country on the one side, are united in opposition to the Anglican and Roman communions on the other side. The schools of the latter, supported to some extent by funds out of the public treasury, are conducted, it is alleged, in the interests of sectarianism. Against this, the former are organized in public protest, and forbidden by conscience they resist the payment of “rates so far as they are to be applied to the maintenance of such an objectional and unjust educational system. For this resistance many thousands have had their property seized and sold by the officers of the law, whilst hundreds of others, including leading ministers and honored private citizens, have suffered the indignity of arrest and personal imprisonment. What the ultimate outcome of the matter will be, no one can yet tell. The end of the contest is seemingly away off, and, meanwhile, the bitter ness and hatred due to the unfortunate situation are constantly spreading and deepening.

It is not our purpose, however, to discuss in this paper either the character of the controversy itself or the possible results in which it may issue. Incidental to it, another matter has been pushed to the front by thinking men on both sides of the controverted educational question, which may well challenge the attention of serious minds on both sides of the water, Americans as well as Englishmen. Amid the strife as to whether or not religious instruction ought to be imparted in the public schools of the nation, the importance and primary responsibility of doing this in Christian homes has been pressed into unusual prominence in public discussion, and seems to be arousing a corresponding interest among thoughtful people. The circumstance occasioning this may be un360663

fortunate and distressing, still a large compensation may attend it if a deepened religious family life will result from it. This constitutes at least one ray of hope and reassurance for those who are struggling with the dark and difficult educational problem. With an emphasis as forceful as it is true, men are being reminded that whether present in or absent from the schools, religious instruction belongs first and foremost to parents in the home. Abroad, as here at home, the tendency is strong and wide-spread to shift the responsibility for such instruction from the shoulders of parents to those of teachers. This tendency is at once ill-advised and mischievous,—so earnest Englishmen, it may be gathered from the public prints, are declaring all around, and anything that will help to arrest and correct this tendency, should be heartily welcomed.

As an example of these public utterances reference may here be made to a remarkably stirring address* made on the subject by the Rev. J. H. Jowett, the distinguished successor of Dr. R. W. Dale, at Carr's Lane, Birmingham. At the fall meeting of the Congregational Union he declared it to be his abiding and unalterable conviction that an incomparably greater and more efficient ministry in behalf of children was in the hands of parents in "transfigured homes," than in either those of schools or churches. He owed much, he said, of his religious advantages in early life to the piety of humble men who taught in Bible schools, and disclaimed having desire or purpose to disparage the importance or results of school efforts. Nevertheless, it remained true that even at their best they were but maimed and stumbling substitutes for the inspiring and uplifting parental instructions which children were entitled to in their homes. If the truth of this is not recognized and faithfully acted on by those that are at the head of families, then the divinely appointed order of things in the "oldest institution" of God among men, is obscured and perverted, and

* Published in The British Weekly, in the issue of October 18, 1906.